While 2024 has been an eventful year in college sports law and pro sports law, 2025 should be no less action-packed, with five key controversies to follow, including further NCAA legal challenges, an ongoing fight between NASCAR and two teams, and Dearica Hamby’s case against the Las Vegas Aces and WNBA.
1) The Legal Fight Over College Athletes as Employees
More from Sportico.com
The most important legal issue facing the sports industry is the potential classification of D-1 college athletes as employees of their school, conference and the NCAA. The resolution of that issue will profoundly alter the relationship between athletes, colleges and the businesses that partner with them.
Major developments about this topic will likely occur in 2025, though don’t expect a final resolution for years. Recent political events could also soon spark revised legal strategies. Most notably, the election of Donald Trump as the 47th president means there will be a new National Labor Relations Board general counsel, whose current GC, Jennifer Abruzzo, is a strong advocate of D-1 college athletes as employees and having the right to unionize. Also, the U.S. Senate’s recent vote against holding a confirmation vote on extending the term of then-NLRB chair Lauren McFerran, whose term ended Dec. 16 and who was regarded as likely supportive of college athletes as employees, could change the decision-making of impacted parties.
There are three active matters where college athletes could be deemed employees. Two involve the NLRB and statutory interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law that empowers employees at private entities to unionize.
Earlier this year, NLRB regional director Laura Sacks concluded Dartmouth College men’s basketball players were employees within the meaning of the NLRA since they perform work in exchange for compensation (including preferred admissions into an elite university, per diem, clothing, sneakers, etc.) and the school has the right to control that work. The players then unionized in a vote to join the Service Employees International Union. Dartmouth asserts the players, who like other Ivy League players do not receive athletic scholarships but like other Ivy League students are eligible for need-based aid, are not employees. Dartmouth has petitioned the agency’s board to review.
The NLRB is also determining whether USC’s football and basketball teams are employees of their school, the Pac-12 and the NCAA. Administrative law judge Eleanor Laws will issue a ruling that, like the Dartmouth matter, will hinge on interpretation of the NLRA. The loser can, and presumably will, challenge the ruling.
There’s also Johnson v. NCAA, where college athletes argue they are employees of their schools and the NCAA within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws that guarantee the right to minimum wage and, if applicable, overtime pay. The plaintiffs have enjoyed success thus far in the case, which is before a federal court in Pennsylvania.
While each of these three matters is important, bigger picture points about college athlete employment will ultimately determine who wins the debate.
Advocates stress colleges already employ full-time students in jobs, including work study positions and dining services roles. In some cases, colleges collectively bargain with unions of student employees. Some student employees are separately compensated through scholarships and financial aid. College students performing labor on behalf of their school for an activity outside of course work, while under the control of the school and in exchange for pay (which sounds like a job), is neither new nor controversial.
Critics charge the tradition of student-athletes as amateurs ought to be valued. There are also worries the financial obligation to pay wages to college athletes will cause some schools to terminate sports teams or convert them to club status.
The topic also involves multiple federal and state laws. The NLRA governs the employment and possible unionization of college athletes at private colleges, but state labor laws, which vary widely, govern the employment and possible unionization of college athletes at public colleges. The FLSA, which is key to work study including for students employed to sell tickets at games, ensures minimum wage and overtime pay.
Keep in mind, if college athletes are deemed employees, they have likely been misclassified as non-employees for years. Colleges, conferences and the NCAA could be deemed on the hook to pay sizable damages for unpaid wages and other back pay.
Another twist: Employee recognition and unionization of one team doesn’t make it true for other teams at a school, let alone in a conference or NCAA-wide. Unionization is an organic process, and while some college athletes and teams will pursue it, others won’t.
The NCAA has lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would declare college athletes are not employees. The prospects of legislation are murky. Even if a bill passed and Trump signed it into law, the statute could face immediate legal challenge on state law preemption and equal protection grounds.
Eventually courts, possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, will decide whether college athletes are employees. “Eventually” might not happen until the late 2020s.
Odds are when I write this story a year from now for 2026, the subject of college athlete classification won’t be resolved. Yet it will remain the most important topic.
2) NCAA Settlement in House Faces Final Hurdle
The NCAA is on the verge of settling the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who after initial objections granted preliminary approval in October, could grant final approval as soon as April.
These three cases collectively threaten the NCAA and its member institutions with many billions of dollars in damages and injunctive remedies that would nullify much of amateurism. NCAA president Charlie Baker, who took over last year, deserves praise for negotiating a deal that averts worst-case scenarios for the NCAA.
But a settlement is a two-way street. To convince the plaintiffs’ attorneys to strike a deal, the NCAA and its members have agreed to pay a considerable price in terms of monetary payments and rule changes. The NCAA and member institutions will be on the hook to pay about $2.8 billion over a 10-year period and colleges can elect to pay athletes for media rights, ticket sales sponsorships and NIL, subject to annual cap of about $21 million total.
Many in the college sports industry have taken it as a given that Wilken will grant final approval. They have hired general managers and retained consulting services to build out pro-sports styled programs. Those moves are designed to take advantage of the new world that is expected to arrive as early as this summer.
While it makes sense to get ahead of the curve, those schools should remember Wilken will do what she thinks is right and at the time she thinks is right. The college sports industry is powerful and wealthy but isn’t in control of the 75-year-old federal judge who has a lifetime appointment to the bench. Wilken will consider objections that have been voiced, including by a group of current and prospective D-1 athletes.
Wilken might also query why three of the named plaintiffs and class representatives (Grant House, Sedona Prince and Nya Harrison) recently wrote her a letter asking her to support recognition of a players’ association. Wilken might question if the players still believe the settlement, which their attorneys negotiated, is acceptable given that what they seek—a union—is a completely different entity. With a key hearing scheduled for April 7, 2025, Wilken will assess whether the settlement complies with the legal requirement that it is fair, reasonable and adequate to class members.
If Wilken isn’t convinced, she could tell the parties to go back to the negotiating room and devise a new arrangement. That could push back implementation of the settlement for another academic year or longer. She could even reject the settlement and send the three cases back to the litigation docket. That might sound far-fetched, but judges have rejected settlements.
Even in a best-case scenario for the NCAA where Wilken grants final approval, application of the settlement could invite legal challenges under areas of law beyond the scope of those presented in House, Carter and Hubbard. Title IX generally prohibits colleges from discriminating on the basis of sex and could become key given that male athletes are expected to take home more of the settlement’s proceeds. The settlement and its pay-features could also invite compliance questions for international athletes who are on student visas. And, as the recent ruling for Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia illustrated, antitrust challenges to NCAA rules will continue.
3) NASCAR and Michael Jordan Could Resolve their Lawsuit
The legal battle between Michael Jordan and NASCAR seems like it was invented for a law school final exam. The greatest basketball player of all time taking on the world’s leading sanctioning body for stock car racing. The best versus the best. Billionaire vs. billionaire.
So far, Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing, which Jordan and Denny Hamlin co-own, have the upper hand. They contend NASCAR and CEO Jim France use a monopoly over stock car racing to suppress teams’ economic opportunities. These two teams refused to sign charter agreements, a point which NASCAR contends reveals the lawsuit is masking a failed business decision. Two weeks ago, 23XI Racing and Front Row scored an injunction that will allow them to compete as charter teams but not (as charter teams must) relinquish legal claims.
The case is hardly over. The presiding judge, Kenneth D. Bell, has cautioned he has not determined the merits of the antitrust arguments. NASCAR is appealing the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which could reverse Bell.
The reality is this case seems primed for a settlement. 23XI Racing and Front Row want to compete with other NASCAR charter teams; it’s not as if they seek to launch a rival league. The disagreement is about contract terms and money. While the two sides have excoriated each other and launched public recriminations that sound almost scripted for journalists to write about, their legal disagreement is far less dramatic. Odds are they’ll find a solution and work together.
4) NFL Sunday Ticket Appeal Looms Large
The NFL’s victory in the Sunday Ticket antitrust class action trial was shocking, not because the league won but how it won.
After a Los Angeles jury held the NFL violated antitrust law through its 32 teams pooling broadcasting rights for out-of-town fans, U.S. District Philip S. Gutierrez granted the NFL a judgment as a matter of law. He found the jury was unreasonable. The NFL escaped the possibility of being ordered to pay as much as $14.1 billion to classes of more than 2.4 million residential subscribers and more than 48,000 restaurants, bars and other commercial establishments that purchased Sunday Ticket anytime between 2011 to 2023.
But now the NFL must defend its win at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit court’s clerk has already set several forthcoming deadlines over the next few months for the parties to file briefs. A three-judge panel will be named.
At the heart of the case is NFL teams pooling their out-of-town broadcasts into one service, the Sunday Ticket, which in the 2024 season has cost consumers $479 via YouTube TV (that number is lower with discounts and more for restaurants and bars). The plaintiffs maintain this arrangement is problematic because NFL teams are competing businesses, and their pooling allegedly increases prices. Instead of pooling their broadcasts into the Sunday Ticket, individual teams could broadcast their games to out-of-town fans in ways that (allegedly) cost those fans less and wouldn’t require them to buy access to games they don’t care about.
The NFL maintains its arrangement not only complies with antitrust law but is popular with fans. Unlike other major pro leagues, the NFL features teams that broadcast their games to local fans for free—a pro-consumer position. The league warns that if the Sunday Ticket is deemed illegal, the league would need to rethink its approach to broadcasting games. The NFL also notes that in a world without the Sunday Ticket, out-of-town fans might lose access to watching their favorite teams or possibly pay more.
An earlier version of the Sunday Ticket case appeared before the Ninth Circuit in 2019, when a three-judge panel reversed a trial court’s dismissal of the case. Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta questioned whether the NFL’s pooling of broadcasts advances consumer interests since fans might prefer smaller and cheaper packages of games.
The case could eventually land at the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2020 denied the NFL’s petition for certiorari. At the time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that antitrust law “likely does not require that the NFL and its member teams compete against each other with respect to television rights.” To the extent at least four other justices feel similarly, the NFL could be well-positioned to ultimately prevail.
5) Dearica Hamby’s Suit Could Make Sports Law History
Next year will prove pivotal for Los Angeles Sparks forward Dearica Hamby’s employment retaliation lawsuit against the Las Vegas Aces and WNBA. Hamby claims the Aces illegally traded her because she was pregnant, and that the WNBA illegally failed to adequately investigate her workplace allegations against the Aces and punished her by declining to extend a marketing agreement.
Both the Aces and WNBA refute the allegations, with the WNBA also insisting it is not Hamby’s employer. Key to the case is Hamby’s depiction of the Aces and WNBA as her joint employers, a legal status that could make the WNBA jointly responsible for any wrongdoing.
The WNBA, which says it regulates but does not control player employment, points out that each team is individually owned, negotiates compensation with players, evaluates player performance and makes draft and trade decisions. The league also notes that players sign employment agreements with their team, not the league. Hamby asserts the WNBA’s role is more pervasive in that it investigates and punishes teams for misconduct and negotiates a CBA that dictates the draft process, establishes minimum and maximum salaries and enforces player conduct rules.
Hamby’s case arrives at a time when joint employment is a critical factor in the potential recognition of college athletes as employees. It also raises important questions about the treatment of women athletes in the context of child birth and family planning.
Best of Sportico.com
Sign up for Sportico’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
